Depreciation claims on deemed ownership and toll roads were rejected as governed by binding precedent.

Depreciation on assets not owned by the assessee was disallowed because the deeming clause treating the capital investment property as acquired and owned had already been considered in binding precedent. The Court rejected the attempt to distinguish that precedent on the same clause and held the claim against the assessee. Toll roads were also not accepted as plant and machinery for depreciation under the applicable schedule, as that issue too was treated as concluded by earlier authority. The appeal therefore failed, and the Tribunal's view was left undisturbed, with the substantial questions of law answered in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether depreciation was allowable on assets not owned by the assessee on the strength of a deeming clause treating the capital investment property as acquired and owned by the assessee. (ii) Whether toll roads could be treated as plant and machinery for depreciation purposes under the applicable depreciation schedule.

Issue (i): Whether depreciation was allowable on assets not owned by the assessee on the strength of a deeming clause treating the capital investment property as acquired and owned by the assessee.

Analysis: The issue was held to be covered by the earlier decision of the same Court, and the distinguishing contention based on the deeming clause was rejected because that clause had already been considered in the earlier precedent.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether toll roads could be treated as plant and machinery for depreciation purposes under the applicable depreciation schedule.

Analysis: The issue was treated as concluded by the earlier decision of the same Court and was not accepted as a ground for taking a different view.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the Tribunal's view was not interfered with; the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later appeal raises no materially different question from an earlier binding precedent, and the relied-upon contractual clause has already been considered in that precedent, depreciation claims contrary to that precedent cannot be allowed.

---